Comments on: Iteration vs State When Is A Round Just A Round http://www.vuuch.com/vuuch-social-plm/iteration-vs-state-when-is-a-round-just-a-round/2010/03/09 Enterprise Social System Mon, 06 Feb 2012 20:35:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Bruce http://www.vuuch.com/vuuch-social-plm/iteration-vs-state-when-is-a-round-just-a-round/2010/03/09#comment-83 Bruce Wed, 19 May 2010 16:04:55 +0000 http://www.vuuch.com/?p=612#comment-83 This is a very important point. I hope more people are following this discussion. I might have to quote you, if you don't mind. This is a very important point. I hope more people are following this discussion. I might have to quote you, if you don’t mind.

]]> By: oleg Shilovitsky http://www.vuuch.com/vuuch-social-plm/iteration-vs-state-when-is-a-round-just-a-round/2010/03/09#comment-82 oleg Shilovitsky Fri, 12 Mar 2010 13:12:18 +0000 http://www.vuuch.com/?p=612#comment-82 Chris, Since I was part of the same discussion with Jim, my conclusion is that ERP and PLM is about to hold different pieces of data. I agree, there are lots of details that not captured by systems today, and I think you made a right point that in many cases this information can be very beneficial. In my view, the root cause is that system collaboration is a very problematic and both PLM and ERP are extremely protective in the way they share data in the enterprise. The ugly truth is that everybody wants to keep data inside of their own system - http://plmtwine.com/2010/03/05/the-ugly-truth-about-plm-erp-monkey-volleyball/. Best, Oleg Chris, Since I was part of the same discussion with Jim, my conclusion is that ERP and PLM is about to hold different pieces of data. I agree, there are lots of details that not captured by systems today, and I think you made a right point that in many cases this information can be very beneficial. In my view, the root cause is that system collaboration is a very problematic and both PLM and ERP are extremely protective in the way they share data in the enterprise. The ugly truth is that everybody wants to keep data inside of their own system – http://plmtwine.com/2010/03/05/the-ugly-truth-about-plm-erp-monkey-volleyball/. Best, Oleg

]]> By: admin http://www.vuuch.com/vuuch-social-plm/iteration-vs-state-when-is-a-round-just-a-round/2010/03/09#comment-81 admin Wed, 10 Mar 2010 12:30:08 +0000 http://www.vuuch.com/?p=612#comment-81 Dave I would expect that if the part changed form fit or function than the upper assembly is also changed (versioned). But even if this is true it would only account for the STATE change and the why or CAUSE for the change is certainly missing. Here is how I understand your case: OEM buys an Assy_A from Supplier_A who is buying a SubAssy_B that is included in Assy_A from Supplier_B. If you look at this from a product liability/DHF point-of-view the buck is getting passed down the chain (as each vendor is validating against their top level claim). In an audit each vendor could report a state change using ERP data. But how do you get at the drivers behind why something changed and how/if the validation of these changes were done, ensuring the top level claims were not altered in a negative way? My feeling is any company in manufacturing has for a long time been able to report state changes. This is nothing new and at one time it was done on paper. But as product liability, compliance and regulatory controls increase you find the focus is on CAUSE, not RESULTS. Dave I would expect that if the part changed form fit or function than the upper assembly is also changed (versioned). But even if this is true it would only account for the STATE change and the why or CAUSE for the change is certainly missing.

Here is how I understand your case: OEM buys an Assy_A from Supplier_A who is buying a SubAssy_B that is included in Assy_A from Supplier_B. If you look at this from a product liability/DHF point-of-view the buck is getting passed down the chain (as each vendor is validating against their top level claim). In an audit each vendor could report a state change using ERP data. But how do you get at the drivers behind why something changed and how/if the validation of these changes were done, ensuring the top level claims were not altered in a negative way?

My feeling is any company in manufacturing has for a long time been able to report state changes. This is nothing new and at one time it was done on paper. But as product liability, compliance and regulatory controls increase you find the focus is on CAUSE, not RESULTS.

]]> By: Dave http://www.vuuch.com/vuuch-social-plm/iteration-vs-state-when-is-a-round-just-a-round/2010/03/09#comment-80 Dave Tue, 09 Mar 2010 19:38:30 +0000 http://www.vuuch.com/?p=612#comment-80 What if the part in question ( being changed via the iterations ) is a part on a Purchased SubAssembly? Would the Part even be visible on its own in the ERP system? The Purchased Subassembly is being provided from an 'Assembler' who acquires the part in question from a vendor and then adds it to the Subassembly. Then 2nd tier supplier is the one with the issue, but that specific part is identified in the design. The only thing ERP knows is that it receives the Subassembly ( Parent to the part in question ) What if the part in question ( being changed via the iterations ) is a part on a Purchased SubAssembly?
Would the Part even be visible on its own in the ERP system? The Purchased Subassembly is being provided from an ‘Assembler’ who acquires the part in question from a vendor and then adds it to the Subassembly.
Then 2nd tier supplier is the one with the issue, but that specific part is identified in the design.
The only thing ERP knows is that it receives the Subassembly ( Parent to the part in question )

]]> By: Conrad http://www.vuuch.com/vuuch-social-plm/iteration-vs-state-when-is-a-round-just-a-round/2010/03/09#comment-79 Conrad Tue, 09 Mar 2010 16:54:43 +0000 http://www.vuuch.com/?p=612#comment-79 This is a very important point. I hope more people are following this discussion. I might have to quote you, if you don't mind. This is a very important point. I hope more people are following this discussion. I might have to quote you, if you don’t mind.

]]>